Things That Are Bullsh*t (11 Viewers)

I don’t like anyone stealing anybody’s designs, but do you really think he can claim ownership of a design which is just a reproduction of Nintendo’s characters?

I’m no trademark expert, and perhaps Nintendo would have a claim as you suggest, but the renderings are an original take on the characters and the chip design itself is original, too. Far from “just a reproduction,” but I take your general point, and my use of “owns” was likely too strong of a word. My primary purpose was just to convey that these aren’t the real thing, in terms of what people may have seen offered on here, and the seller is benefitting off of someone else’s efforts, almost certainly without permission.
 
I’m no trademark expert, and perhaps Nintendo would have a claim as you suggest, but the renderings are an original take on the characters and the chip design itself is original, too. Far from “just a reproduction,” but I take your general point, and my use of “owns” was likely too strong of a word. My primary purpose was just to convey that these aren’t the real thing, in terms of what people may have seen offered on here, and the seller is benefitting off of someone else’s efforts, almost certainly without permission.
I remember my first day on PCF
 
I guess that’s my cue to shut up?
1686973172832.gif
 
Not sure if you posted this here just because of the price or because of the chips themselves, but just so it’s said for anyone unfamiliar with these: these are definitely knockoffs of the ones @rjdev7 owns the rights to and sells here. And bad knockoffs, too. Anyone considering these, know that you’re not just getting ripped off, but also buying stolen IP.
Do you know this for a fact?
Or are they more likely just the same ones many of us have bought on here and the seller is most likely on here selling the chips he bought here for a profit like many of the others do?
 
Nearly certain, unless they’re an early version or something, showing discontinued designs. Notably:

-They appear to have words on the rolling edge, which the ones here do not.
-They include denominations, like 10 and 50, that do not exist in the set here. (The 50 in particular looks photoshopped on the “5” to me. The Wario 500 looks weird on the 5, too, but that one is the right denom, so not sure what’s going on there.)
-The 1s and 5s do not have dollar signs and the set here only offers that on the 25 and up.

But it sounds like I’m not supposed to talk about that here for some reason.
The 0 on a bunch looks not bold font like the rest now that you pointed that stuff out.
I have a real set I bought off here and do wish a few things were different. No Mario in my tournament set kinda sucks.
While copying and selling as your own like the Chinese do. Copying for personal use is often overlooked since many times its the only way to get exactly what you want in the set by starting from scratch yourself or modifying something you like into something you love.
 
But it sounds like I’m not supposed to talk about that here for some reason.
If you're making a moral argument that copying someone else's design without permission is distasteful, that's fine - it's a matter of opinion.

If you're making a legal argument, though, it's silly. The Super Poker World design wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving a lawsuit if Nintendo ever decided to pursue one.

I personally think the design is fun and well done. I have no problem with the creator sharing the design for folks to make personal sets. But legally, it's also blatant copyright infringement.
 
If you're making a moral argument that copying someone else's design without permission is distasteful, that's fine - it's a matter of opinion.

If you're making a legal argument, though, it's silly. The Super Poker World design wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving a lawsuit if Nintendo ever decided to pursue one.

I personally think the design is fun and well done. I have no problem with the creator sharing the design for folks to make personal sets. But legally, it's also blatant copyright infringement.
I’m not making any of those arguments, and I think I sufficiently clarified my point earlier:

My primary purpose was just to convey that these aren’t the real thing, in terms of what people may have seen offered on here, and the seller is benefitting off of someone else’s efforts, almost certainly without permission.
 
Slip the IT Manager $20.00 and get it whitelisted lol
There must be a new trigger with one of the recent updates. I've been with my firm over a decade, never had an issue before. :(
 
There must be a new trigger with one of the recent updates. I've been with my firm over a decade, never had an issue before. :(
Interstingly, the opposite happened to me today. I get no data at my dentist office, so I have to use their wifi. In the past, I haven't been able to hit PCF - must be filtered out through their wifi. Today, miracle of miracles, PCF was unblocked!
 
Yeah this happened to me a few months ago at my now-former employer.

The worst part is that it was blocked by nanny software on my company laptop, not the office network. So even when working from home, PCF was blocked.

Yup…I mostly PCF whilst on the crapper anyway. Laptop is too bulky for that…so the phone is fine, I guess.

My biggest issue is GIFing on my phone…I can’t ever get it right.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom